In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

49 thoughts on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona

  1. This is an absolutely terrible thing. And now I’m watching the live feed of a local AZ news station, where someone is talking about how this could cause a gun control issue, and to remember that Rep Giffords was a gun owner herself… I mean, damn…

  2. I hope it’s just some random sociopath, but it’s probably a political thing, and the first of many.
    F*ck. It’s one thing to worry about this, and another thing to see it happen. I wish people wouldn’t encourage me to think badly of them. I almost wish I believed in God, so I could pray for her.

  4. This is horrifying, I don’t think there are any other words to describe this.

    I think this is a clear example of why threats of violence, fear, and vitriol no longer have a place in politics.

  5. Politicalguineapig: I hope it’s just some random sociopath, but it’s probably a political thing, and the first of many.  

    Okay, I’m going to step in right here so that this doesn’t spiral, because that’s what tends to happen on these threads. On this thread, I am going to tolerate absolutely no ascribing of shootings to generally the sort of thing people with mental illnesses might do. It’s an unfair reference, and it takes away from conversations we could be having. If anyone is tempted to make a comment saying something along the lines of “but only a mentally ill person could do something like this,” please consult some actual statistics or history or learn what happens when mentally ill people get characterised as violent, and causes of violence aren’t investigated. Should the shooter turn out to have a mental illness that contributed to this, that’s another thing, but speculation around how that might play out is not acceptable.

  6. I’m just reminded of this documentary I watched yesterday on the MLK assassination. (You can watch it here – http://video.pbs.org/video/1481821280 ). One great quote from the documentary that I’ll paraphrase here — “We weren’t interested so much in who killed Dr. King. We were interested in what killed Dr. King. The attitudes and hatred in the culture that could help push a sick individual to do something like this.” (Sick in this case not referring to any mental health issues, but a sickness of spirit that could lead one to want to kill an innocent person.)

    The attitudes in some segments of our culture now, that focus on calling their political opposition immoral and determined to destroy the country, the use gun imagery and terminology to create an image of down-home bravado, these are things we should all work to try and end.

  8. People who make an active display of carrying weaponry near politicians have no place in a democratic society. This isn’t a matter of rights – rights have nothing to do with base acts of intimidation and violence.

  13. “We weren’t interested so much in who killed Dr. King. We were interested in what killed Dr. King. The attitudes and hatred in the culture that could help push a sick individual to do something like this.”

    OK. JKF was assassinated by a left-winger. Obviously, its not too hard to find violent revolutionary rhetoric from other fellow-travelers or even progressives sympathetic to communist grievances. Many great intellectuals would be implicated by the standard being used against Sarah Palin. I doubt Angela Davis could withstand scrutiny.

    In order to be consistent, wouldn’t we also have to be interested in what killed JFK?

  14. A 9 year old girl was killed, along with 5 others. One was a federal judge. Some were Gabby’s staff. According to the head trauma surgeon at the hospital, they had 5 patients in critical condition and 5 in surgery. That was around 2 pm.

    The shooter was reportedly a 22 year old man. I can only hope that this event, whatever the motive, will give certain commentators pause the next time they plan to use violent rhetoric while discussing politics.

    McCain released a rather scathing statement:

    “Whoever did this; whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.”

    This is a terrible day for my state. I’m saddened and horrified. Gabby is a very well-liked representative; she makes herself accessible to her district, both to her supporters and detractors.

  15. Manju:
    In order to be consistent, wouldn’t we also have to be interested in what killed JFK?  

    Oh, most certainly, yes. This is less about the views one holds (left or right) on social policy, fiscal policy, how government should be run, power structures, etc. It’s about how one approaches opposition. Things like using the trappings of violence in the rhetoric to advocate ones cause are problematic. It doesn’t matter if the individual is advocating for a leftist or right-wing position.

  16. Lance:

    I should clarify that I don’t really disagree with what you say, especially in regards to MLK. I just want people to be cognizant of the limits of the cultural argument, i.e., when does the argument descend into a form of McCarthyism.

    I’m sure most people here are cognizant of this when the cultural argument is used against Muslims in regards to Islamic terrorism. The argument is legitimate imo, and distinctly parallels blaming American culture as a whole for American racism, but its also an argument that could easily be demagogued.

    I don’t blame anyone for immediately thinking a teabagger is responsible here, but early reports suggest the has some lefty-views. The Rep targeted was a Conservative-Dem. So, nuance may have to be in order.

  18. From what I have read, the accused shooter fits the profile of the gunman in every situation like this I have witnessed over the years. It’s just that until recent memory, they didn’t have blogs, Facebook profiles, and MySpace pages to comb through trying to discern some greater meaning.

    Sometimes violence that occurs as a result of disjointed hatred is without much of a coherent motive. These are times of great political polarization, but they don’t necessarily translate to tragic events like this.

  19. Opheelia: I can only hope that this event, whatever the motive, will give certain commentators pause the next time they plan to use violent rhetoric while discussing politics.

    Palin pulled a tweet and her 20-person hit list off her site after this came to light. PR or because she genuinely cares? I’m not sure, but if the end result is the same, I don’t mind. I appreciate the gesture, at least.

  20. Comrade Kevin: From what I have read, the accused shooter fits the profile of the gunman in every situation like this I have witnessed over the years.

    Yeah? What profile? “Generic white dude”?

  21. My prayers go to Ms. Giffords and all who were injured that they be healed, and also to the families of all who the gunman murdered.

    Chally, thank you for the commenting clamp-down@5. I for one appreciate it.

  22. Opheelia: I can only hope that this event, whatever the motive, will give certain commentators pause the next time they plan to use violent rhetoric while discussing politics.state.   

    I can only hope that this event, whatever the motive, will give certain commentators pause the next time they plan to use violent rhetoric while discussing politics.

    I hope all commentators continue to exercise their free speech rights to express what they believe, using whatever rhetoric they deem necessary to make the point. The people who should keep quiet are those who make the phony connection between one person’s speech and another person’s criminal conduct. It’s simply an attempt to intimidate and silence, much like the use of the epithet “teabagger” and other hate speech. The insinuation that conservatives are inherent violent is every bit as offensive as attributing that trait to the mentally ill.

  23. Further evidence IMO that the second amendment was shitty idea. It’s hard to stab 18 people.

  24. I don’t understand why people think someone he knew in high school thinking he was leftist means anything. I knew a kid in high school who was reactionary racist and barely a year into college was a revolutionary marxist. The “reports” that he had any left-wing proclivities are simply not meaningful. We may learn that he does, but what he was like when he was younger just doesn’t tell us much.

  25. @ kristen j.
    “Further evidence IMO that the second amendment was shitty idea. It’s hard to stab 18 people.”

    There have been plenty of comments that if someone had been armed in the crowd, he wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people. They really believe that arming “the good guys” will always counteract “the bad guys.” I just don’t believe that. The level of access to weapons in Arizona has allowed prohibited possessors to repeatedly obtain weapons (as shown by the DV homicides perpetrated by those with qualifying convictions) as well as contributed heavily to border violence perpetrated by drug cartels.

    HE HAD AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. HE HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD.

    They’re all so willing to revise the Constitution when it suits them, like their beef with the 14th amendment. But no legal scholar would tell you with a straight face that the framers intended for everyone to have access to high powered firearms.

  27. Exactly, Donna — it’s all Sarah Palin’s fault. And the teabaggers of course. Metaphorical speech kills, after all.

    As long as we’re going the group slander route, I got a proposal. Every time there’s a murder, assault, rape or other crime, let’s determine whether the perpetrator was a registered Democrat. And let’s keep tabs on what party released felons generally register in. Then we can blame the whole party for the crime. And while we’re at it, let’s blame all Muslims every time one of them kills with the encouragement of some Imam calling for Jihad.

  28. No worries, GallingGalla.

    Northeast Elizabeth, it’s not about painting a political group in a certain way, as has been discussed really eloquently by Lance. I think your determination to see the discussion here as being about painting the right as violent is overshadowing the conversation we’re actually having. And hate speech obviously influences violent conduct: that’s not conjecture, that’s how politicised violence operates.

    I’ve deleted two comments featuring comments about mental illness thus far. Don’t make it a third.

  30. It’s ALL about painting a political group in a certain way. I’ve been watching the coverage. The general attitude of the MSM is “either it’s a tea party extremist or please, no labels.” Now that it’s become increasingly clear that the killer was left-leaning if anything if anything, the “no labels” meme is being pushed. With constant cute reminders (as on this thread) that it’s all Sarah Palim’s fault (Donna) or the Tea Party (Lance). It’s beyond me how you can interpret Lance’s unctuous snark about how we should blame those who demonize the opposition any other way. His later attempt to backtrack (“doesn’t matter if it’s right or left”) isn’t fooling me.

    Once again, the issue has nothing to do with the temperature of contemporary political rhetoric. It has nothing to do with a climate of hatred or how one approaches or criticizes the opposition. The calls to “cool down” the tone are nothing but attempts to demonize the right and chill political speech. Lance’s implication that the killer was influenced by the “climate” in this country is nothing but an unsupported supposition meant to shift blame away from the actual perpetrator.

    I’m not falling, either, for the attempt to create a distraction by launching into a righteous defense of the mentally ill. I understand your desire to have all fingers pointing at the right (or euphemisms such as “overheated rhetoric”) but it’s disgraceful to go about it that way. I’m also baffled why you’ve singled out one of countless possible motivations as off-limits for discussion yet given the green light to the ridiculous theory that the killer’s rage was stoked by political rhetoric. But if you are going down that road at least have the decency to name names (like Donna did).

  31. Chally: And hate speech obviously influences violent conduct: that’s not conjecture, that’s how politicised violence operates.

    Repeated for emphasis. I think we tend to hand wave the importance of this when it doesn’t end in tragedy, but I’m hoping to at least be a better activist about it at all other times.

  32. Chally, we can’t have a conversation about politicized violence without talking about crazy. “Crazy” is how such political violence works, as that Arizona police chief has carefully outlined. It’s a fundamental tactic in a nominalized civilized society with the acknowledged monopoly of violence by the state.

    Furthermore, in general, I absolutely *hate* this kind of moderation, because it breeds a highly caustic cynicism (don’t talk about pink elephants, people!), and it breeds a preference for performance normativity rather than any challenge to illiberal thinking. Lastly, it breeds illiberal moderation, because you’re focused on the details of how someone speaks, instead of focusing on creating a productive conversation.

  33. On the other had, going from generalities to specificness, I whole-heartedly approve of your moderation sensibilities outlined in comment 5.

    What I want is people talking with thought about this sort of thing. If it’s crazy or “crazy”, then so be it. But random talk of sociopath was indeed the wrong thing to have around.

  34. Northeast Elizabeth: Look, words are important. If a politician or a person in the public eye uses violent rhetoric, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone in their movement acts on those words. Cause and effect ma’am, cause and effect.
    And stop pretending like this is a freak incident. Google ‘Right Wing Violence 2008-2010’ and I bet your computer would crash from all the results pouring in..
    Manju: Stop with the conspiracy theories already. If Oswald was a Communist, wouldn’t he have been on JFK’s side? That’s like saying Booth supported the Union in the Civil War.
    Further note: a nine-year-old girl? Geez, wingers, way to be pro-life.

  35. Well, I’ll let the Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals compare caliber sizes (pun intended) when it comes to who’s killed the most, whose incited the most because of course it’s all about them.

    Sorry but I’ve read way too many comment threads this morning. My Palin is worth your Obama quotes. And I think the sheriff had guts to make the comments he did about Arizona because of what’s been going on there.

    I’m thinking how damn ironic it is for a little girl born on 9-11 and actually featured in a book with 49 other “children of hope” gets gunned down while visiting an elected official she admired. A really sad day among many. A lot of promises were made on 9-11 that didn’t necessarily have to do with revenge and at least one was broken yesterday.

  36. And seriously if Latinos can get shot in the back in Arizona and there’s nothing done about that, why wouldn’t someone wind up taking a shot at a politician at some point? Tacitly allowed violence always works its way up the hierarchy at some point until it reaches a victim where finally people do pay attention.

  37. HE HAD AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON.

    No, he didn’t. Those are illegal and rather harder to come by. He had a plain old pistol, the type you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet fired.

  38. How excellent then, shah8, that I wasn’t trying to shut down a discussion about how people get painted as mentally ill in these situations, but only minimise the possibility of hurting people with mental illnesses by assuming mental illness here, and have a productive conversation. You’ve just said you hate and then in your next comment praised the same moderation sensibility, which makes me think you’ve gotten what I’ve said confused.

    That’s great, Northeast Elizabeth, but not what we’re talking about here in this blog, and, again, you’re reading things that aren’t there into the conversation: Lance wasn’t backtracking. I do not have a desire to point fingers at the right; the entire time I’ve been moderating this blog, I’ve been trying to keep these attitudes away from people with mental illnesses in comments. I am not from the US, our politics don’t work in the same way, I am really, really not invested in your particular political dynamics. It is really strange that you keep insisting that that is so. As for your last point, you’re just getting into ridiculous territory. Engage in good faith, with what we’re actually saying, or don’t comment.

  39. That is correct. Was more reacting from previous experience elsewheres before I digested what you were doing.

  40. Chally: I’m sorry, my first comment was out of line. What I meant to say was that I hoped it was a random act of violence, not a pattern.
    And btw, what is it with white men that they suddenly realize it’s not 1950 anymore, and then they get the urge to blow someone away?

  41. e y p:
    No, he didn’t. Those are illegal and rather harder to come by. He had a plain old pistol, the type you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet fired.  

    Automatics are not illegal, they are highly regulated and increasingly expensive as the pool of them that can be legally owned gets smaller.

  42. Manju: Stop with the conspiracy theories already. If Oswald was a Communist, wouldn’t he have been on JFK’s side? That’s like saying Booth supported the Union in the Civil War.

    This is a bizarre mating of lefty denial and teabagger logic. How does one read this statement without concluding the author thinks JFK a communist or fellow-traveler at at least (not unlike Dinesh D’Souza’s accusations against Obama)? Has the Bay of Pigs been removed from the history books by the Texas School Board or something?

    I understand JFK was a lefty by American standards. But anticommunism—Containment, MAD, etc–all emerged from the mainstream liberal interventionism of the American left. The RWing, while anti-communist, was hobbled by isolationism, though they’ve clearly made up for that.

    That Oswald killed a fellow lefty doesn’t mean he suddenly seizes to be a communist. The man defected to the USSR for Pete’s sake (who the hell is Pete, anyway?). By this logic, Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin must’ve been a lefty.

    But i guess by denying Oswald’s political leanings means you don’t have to follow your own advice, which is to examine the rhetoric emanating from the assassin’s fellow ideologues. You refuse to do it but you expect the RingWing to. Yeah, that’ll work.

  43. Ceasing, not ‘seizing.’ And I’d like to point out that Oswald didn’t HAVE any fellow ideologues in the States. Whereas this guy had plenty of ideological support. It was only a matter of time before someone got shot; heck, they were predicting way back in 2008 that Obama’d be lucky to make it to 2012.

  44. And I’d like to point out that Oswald didn’t HAVE any fellow ideologues in the States

    There were no Communists or Communist-sympathizers in the USA in the 1960s? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? The entire econ dept of the U of Mass was Marxist up till the 1980’s (it was a major political ideology at one point). Walter Duranty and The New York Times were still denying the Ukrainian Famine. Louis Fischer and The Nation too.

    Perhaps if these leftists allowed the truth to be published young men like Oswald wouldn’t be attracted to this anti-freedom ideology.

    Whereas this guy had plenty of ideological support.

    How in the world can we know if he had ideological support when we don’t even know what his ideology is. We don’t even know if he’s lefty or rightly. There’s evidence supported both positions.

  45. Northeast Elizabeth: I’m not falling, either, for the attempt to create a distraction by launching into a righteous defense of the mentally ill.

    [snark]
    Good. Because us mentally ill people are certainly not worthy of defense.
    [/snark]

    Northeast Elizabeth: I’m also baffled why you’ve singled out one of countless possible motivations as off-limits for discussion…

    Y’no what? Ima tell you all the things that are wrong with me. Here goes: Major depressive disorder, anxiety, PTSD, depersonalization, derealization, possible dissociative identity disorder. Plus, I’m autistic and have ADHD, which though they’re not mental illnesses, impact how I react to said illnesses. See how nice I am? Now you, Nice Mentally/Developmentally Abled Lady, get to play “ZOMG, what horrible awful thing will GG do next?”

    But fair warning: You come onto my blog and spout this shit, I will ban your ass in a second.

  46. Politicalguineapig:
    And btw, what is it with white men that they suddenly realize it’s not 1950 anymore, and then they get the urge to blow someone away?

    I dunno, us white men are pretty violent folk. I suppressed my urge to kick puppies and punch children on my home from work the other day. Then when I opened up a belated christmas – new years calendar, I noticed it wasn’t 1950. A rush of blood flowed to my underdeveloped white man brain and caused me to pass out.

  47. LOL. Okay, I deserved that snark. It just seems that a lot of the recent right-wing uptick in violence seems to stem from white guys being angry about not being on top anymore. I mean, when was the last time you heard about an African American man or a woman of any nationality being a perp in a violent political incident? Or going on a shooting spree? I can name one woman and three members of minorities, but the majority of spree shooters are.. white guys, usually Christian. I just kinda have to wonder what’s up with that.
    Manju: Incidentally, how many of these guys were running advertisements with people in the crosshairs of guns? Or going to rallies with armed people and riling them up? ‘Cause I don’t think that you can say that an economics department of a university is the same as a rally with a bunch of guys waving their peens- sorry, guns- around.

  48. You know, I’m noticing much of the rhetoric in the MSM has been centered around ableist bullshit, since apparently it’s a horrible sin to point out that the eliminationist rhetoric on the part of the Tea Party/right wing was not helpful. When you consistently paint progressives and liberals (even slightly left of center folks) as America hating traitors who are just the same as Nazis and who want to destroy the country, it shouldn’t be at all surprising when something like this happens. Yet we aren’t supposed to point that out because it’s somehow crass. Better to just go on and on about the shooter’s supposed mental illness–let’s shit on mentally ill people instead of look at our own culpability!

Comments are currently closed.